the universe will not be controlled by the likes of us
the title is a brilliant phrase uttered on the intertubes by AdamSelene @ theoildrum.com. this space accumulates other such short, poetic, and found-elsewhere insights into the limits of human cognition. it is a project dedicated to Wes Jackson’s vision of an “ignorance-based worldview.” a brilliant phrase uttered by his friend Wendell Barry in a letter.Archive for unintended consequences
planetary incoherence
there’s an article on bbc called ‘pollution “fights global warming.”‘ it discusses a recent finding that “global dimming” – the haziness of the skies since the 1960s, due to air pollution – has been responsible for an overall increase in photosynthetic productivity, allowing plants to sequester 10% more carbon dioxide than they otherwise would have. the article takes this to mean that two of mankind’s goals – reducing carbon emissions specifically and reducing atmospheric pollution in general – are somewhat antagonistic. this is an interesting example of unintended consequences that result when we set our sights on projects that should be obviously beyond our scope – for example, controlling the climate of an entire planet. unruly incoherence arises. the more we study what we can’t control, in an attempt to control it, the more dizzingly fragmented the range of possible actions becomes; conversely, the more we conform to nature, the more coherent and unified our possible responses to our discoveries become. masanobu fukuokoa employed some great adjectives for this. he called scientific agriculture (the attempt to control what can’t be controlled) “centripetal and divergent” and natural farming (the attempt to conform to nature) “centrifugal and divergent.” btw, i’m curious to see if this type of research will start to snowball (i.e. if there will be incentives to further support this finding) and if we’ll see political leaders use it to justify their projects which increase, rather than decrease, pollution (e.g. building coal plants or something), because fighting global warming is so urgent – i.e. the ends justify the means. this would not be a revolutionary for a politician. “the ends justify the means”-type thinking will always be centrifugal and divergent. but there are alternatives. they require, however, true spiritual vision and bravery, rather than desperate flailing in service of the status quo.
